This is pure genius.
I must say that things are going sour for The Community Organiser quicker than you can say the words “Andrew Sullivan”.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
13 comments to The voice of The One |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Things began to go sour when Obama was called the “Teleprompter Jesus”.
Wow Things are looking more and more like a chapter out of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ every day. I’ve been rereading it and it’s pretty amazing (in parts). The bit about the banker Eugene Lawson, who is proud of lending money to people who can never pay it back and then goes on to get a high powered government job is perfect.
So what if Ayn Rand was more than a bit altruistic with the adjectives and adverbs, she really did understand how the Obama administration thinks.
Iowahawk’s Hey Barack(Link), from last year, led the way.
And, of couse, when you’re incapable of coherent speech without a mechanical aid these things (Link) can happen.
I find it interesting (instructive? telling? perplexing? choose your adjective) that G.W. Bush received endless ridicule for his “malocutions,” and Regan was dismissed as nothing but a “second-rate actor”, but Obama is still lauded as a “great orator” when his only real skill is reading a telepromptor and (when necessary) reciting pre-written position points. He’s an empty suit with great acting skills. It’s not that this emperor has no clothes; he is only clothes. (Or, as Gertrude Stein famously put it, there is no “there” there.)
On the teleprompter thing, this cartoon(Link) in IBD says it well.
On Ayn Rand, I found this quote ticks a lot of boxes currently:
He’s an empty suit with great acting skills. It’s not that this emperor has no clothes; he is only clothes. (Or, as Gertrude Stein famously put it, there is no “there” there.)
Or, more disturbing to me: what actually is “there” is completely dissimulated.
I think neo-neocon (picking up Dean Barnett’s shrewd observation from a year ago) captures what’s so creepy about the phenomenon here:
What’s behind Obama’s teleprompter addiction?
As she says, “Obama is addicted to his Teleprompter not only because he knows he sounds better—smoother and smarter—with it than without. The deeper reason for his reliance on it may just be that he differs so profoundly from the persona he wishes to convey that he quite literally cannot trust himself to speak without it. Shorn of the Teleprompter, he not only runs the risk of revealing a disfluency that could rival (or even exceed?) that of his reviled predecessor George Bush—he may reveal who he truly is, an angry man with a profoundly radical agenda for America.”
And I agree with her conclusion that, “In his endeavor to exercise such tight control over his words, Obama seems to be presenting the most studied and manipulative (in the sense of saying one thing and intending another, and/or using doublespeak, as I outlined in yesterday’s post) message of any president in our history. This is profoundly disturbing.” Yep.
lael, thank you for the link to “Neo-neocon”. It’s not a blog I was familiar with, but I plan to read more of it. That’s a great article, and many of the posted comments also have important things to say. Worth a read.
King Hussein Al Chicago is not just funny, he is downright scary:
https://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/3/obama-and-the-weathermen
I don’t think that in his public speeches Obama is addicted to the machine any more than any other politician. I saw him interviewed by Steve Kroft, and he was very impressive. Of course he read the questions ahead of time and rehearsed, and had an openly sympathetic interviewer, but so would any Democratic candidate, no? For example, at the time,Kerry wasn’t nearly as impressive on TV. As to whether he is an empty suit, for me the jury is still out, but I’d rather be on the side of caution by presuming he is not. The mere fact that we don’t like what’s inside the suit does not mean that it’s empty.
These are comments about a man whom the electorate chose, knowing full well he has no experience nor demonstrated capacity for an executive position.
It was (and is) obvious that he was chosen by those who (knew, felt, hoped – choose one) he does have intellectual capacity to learn and develop into what is needed for the function.
But, that has not begun.
He needs to (must) “hush-up” with or without assisting devices, stop the road trips, stay in the office and get on with the on-the-job-training, for which he was knowingly elected.
He does not yet want to do that until he has cast an image to the public of how he wants to be perceived so that once (if ever) he does commence the true functions of the office, his actions will have general acceptance.
By most indications, including the effect of the “device,” it probabaly will not come to pass.
Something must underlie Obama’s utter incompetence in, for example, judging the character of others. If it’s not his being an empty suit, it must be his various character defects, such as his lack of regard for truth — which IMHO contributes to his being an empty suit. This is a man who in his campaign pretended competence despite being, like his pal Deval Patrick, a paragon of the Peter Principle, and whose errors reflect instead the level of competence that he revealed and was given a pass on during the campaign.
Obama seems to have a little trouble reading Reality’s teleprompter. I’m going to increase taxes, in order to decrease revenue and sap my opponents, for the children…. Nah, something sounds off; can’t quite put my finger on why B.O. wouldn’t go for it. Oh, yeah, the truth thing; too harsh.
The astonishing thing is that it is so open.
As is pointed out by the commentors above (such as lael) Barack Obama does not use a teleprompter because he could not think of anything to say without it – but because he fears what he might say.
He states openly in his books (I forget whether it was volume one, two or three of Why I Am So Wonderful: His “Astonishing Life” of going to university to university in between being given jobs on high powered foundations), he taught himself to speak in a gentle tone and with controlled body language – and to never say what was actually on his mind.
This is not astonishing, as chanting “Death-to-America” at the top of his voice might disturb people. And he reasoned he would go further in life if he seemed like a gentle, friendly person.
The interesting thing is why he is still so careful.
After all Barack Obama is now President – what could any of us actually DO if he decided to say something like the following:
“You fools, you stupes – your pathetic capitalism, your so called Western Civilization, is finished. You can not stop us now – we do not just control the office of the President, we control the leadership of both Houses of Congress, we control the universities, we control the media. The task that Gramsci laid out for us has been achieved.
You now expect me to declare that we will bury you – but will not do that, as we intend to eat the marrow from your bones”.
I repeat, if Barack Obama stopped being so careful – if he got rid of the machine and said all the above, word for word, what could we actually DO about it?
The astonishing thing is that it is so open.
As is pointed out by the commentors above (such as lael) Barack Obama does not use a teleprompter because he could not think of anything to say without it – but because he fears what he might say.
He states openly in his books (I forget whether it was volume one, two or three of Why I Am So Wonderful: His “Astonishing Life” of going to university to university in between being given jobs on high powered foundations), he taught himself to speak in a gentle tone and with controlled body language – and to never say what was actually on his mind.
This is not astonishing, as chanting “Death-to-America” at the top of his voice might disturb people. And he reasoned he would go further in life if he seemed like a gentle, friendly person.
The interesting thing is why he is still so careful.
After all Barack Obama is now President – what could any of us actually DO if he decided to say something like the following:
“You fools, you stupes – your pathetic capitalism, your so called Western Civilization, is finished. You can not stop us now – we do not just control the office of the President, we control the leadership of both Houses of Congress, we control the universities, we control the media. The task that Gramsci laid out for us has been achieved.
You now expect me to declare that we will bury you – but will not do that, as we intend to eat the marrow from your bones”.
I repeat, if Barack Obama stopped being so careful – if he got rid of the machine and said all the above, word for word, what could we actually DO about it?